Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Newton, who was am Alchemist practitioner of the Wise Craft, statedthat for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I contend he’s got it wrong it should be that for every action (force) in nature there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Who is smart enough here to know the difference?

Now Jim, before you go off and make yourself feelthy rich, consider how many ounces of gold and platinum there is in a cubic mile of sea water as silver wont make you feelthy rich.

Now if you buy a device that makes water silver just how do you intend to get the silver out of the water to make you feelthy rich? And if you were smart enough to do it, then why make it when its already abundantly available in the oceans?

Doh! Says Jim….. neva thought of dat.

You see Jim if you’re going to get it out or put it in as there is an opposite and equal for everything, what I am explaining to you is very valuable technology.

I haven’t even touched upon getting it out, first you need to know how to get it in…. putting anything into that hard head of yours is proving to be difficult though.

Water will dissolve anything if given enough time. So why do some frequencies intermingle with waters frequencies faster than others? How does one get frequencies out of water in a usable or desirable form?

If a magnetic field generation device can add new frequencies like silver, gold or platinum and also remove them to purify sewerage/acid mine waste/salt/ oily saline OR FOOD DYE or any combination of them, would it not be prudent to look into this and get feelthy rich Jim?

How does this adding ‘elements’ and the opposite and equal of removing them from water sit with your outdated hydrogen bonds, Jim?

Merlynn,You are derailing this thread. Please keep your philosophizing on your own thread. Jim McGinn started this thread and deserves to have the posts placed on this thread directly related to his original post.

nick c wrote:Merlynn,You are derailing this thread. Please keep your philosophizing on your own thread. Jim McGinn started this thread and deserves to have the posts placed on this thread directly related to his original post.

Thanks Nick, I really appreciate that.

Merilynn,

If you don't want people to ask for verification of your claims then don't make them.

jimmcginn » Fri Feb 24, 2017The notion that moist air is lighter is easily falsified by the simple observation is that most of the moist stays near the surface. Convection is a dimwitted, consensus notion. It appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer. Meteorologists collude to stay silent on this issue. Their motive is political and fiscal and not scientific.

nick c wrote:Merlynn,You are derailing this thread. Please keep your philosophizing on your own thread. Jim McGinn started this thread and deserves to have the posts placed on this thread directly related to his original post.

No I am not... How can you explain moisture if your understanding of water is flawed or even totally false?I provide reports and experiments that Jim requests and when he cant be bothered to look at NEW experiments that challenge his water theory by childishly pooh poohing them, you step in and shut down the debate what water is...

So how do we get to the bottom of moisture and air if you stop debate on water? What is a cake if we cant look at how flour is made?

A true scientist accepts nothing and proves all to himself... There are no true scientists here that wish to make themselves known.

Now Jim. I put forth several ways you can understand water. Why do you ignore them?

nick c wrote:Merlynn,You are derailing this thread. Please keep your philosophizing on your own thread. Jim McGinn started this thread and deserves to have the posts placed on this thread directly related to his original post.

No I am not... How can you explain moisture if your understanding of water is flawed or even totally false?I provide reports and experiments that Jim requests and when he cant be bothered to look at NEW experiments that challenge his water theory by childishly pooh poohing them, you step in and shut down the debate what water is...

So how do we get to the bottom of moisture and air if you stop debate on water? What is a cake if we cant look at how flour is made?

A true scientist accepts nothing and proves all to himself... There are no true scientists here that wish to make themselves known.

Now Jim. I put forth several ways you can understand water. Why do you ignore them?

MerLynn wrote:Yes Jim. What is water that becomes "moisture in clear air" question within the atmosphere?

Are you prepared to look at experiments that you can personally conduct that may shed new light on the nature of water and explain these experiments within the framework of "your" theory.

Also are you prepared to re examine the experiments that try to explain water from an electrolysis perspective as I posted previously?

Until we have satisfied all the aspects of water and fitted them into a theory can the theory be accepted as the best that fits, you surely would agree to that Jim?.

You've made some grandiose claims. When asked to substantiate these claims you refuse.

The world is full of people that are unaware of the vagueness of their comprehension of reality. There are many, for example, that believe that H2O magically turns to steam in the atmosphere at temperatures far below the boiling point of H2O. Maybe the most prominent amongst them is meteorologists. If you ask them to provide empirical substantiation of this belief they, instead, will direct your attention to anecdotal evidence and restate their unsupported claim. But they will not provide the requested verification. When confronted as to their inability to explain this assumption they claim that their collective expertise excuses them from having to provide this explanation.

What I am doing Jim, is claiming you do not know what water is and challenging you to prove water is H2O.

You cannot make claims about moisture in the Atmosphere when you haven't explained what water is and how it pertains to moisture. We will get to Atmosphere later as i contend you know not what it is either.

So while you are making outlandish statements about 'my' claims, I contend you need to prove your belief that water is H2O.

This H2O thingie is based purely upon sticking 'electricity' into a 'liquid' and making assumptions.

There are many ways to stick 'electricity'' into liquids and I have helped discover newer methods which you make silly remarks about getting feelthy rich over and then state I offer no evidence.

It would seem that any evidence I have offered you have rejected without investigation and then make the claim I don't offer proof or substantiation.

So Jim, How do you justify sticking 'electrons' into a liquid of caustic solution as proof that water is H2O

This is actually serious, and to prove the falsity of such blatantly nonsensical results involving only ONE experiment controlled or rigged to give the desired outcome clearly shows the mental ineptitude of all those who do not question this experiment.

Surely you would like to understand water better yes Jim? It may help with your understanding of moisture in the Atmosphere theories greatly.

I believe that in something you had written somewhere, I once saw where you had stated that it takes more energy to remove a single molecule of water from the surface of liquid water, than it does to remove two-or-more water molecules together. To me this would be interesting if so. Do you have any quantitative basis for this statement, a reference perhaps where someone (or you) made some analysis of intermolecular bonding and came to this conclusion?

Jimmi mcgimmi wrote in reply Uh…Nick wrote, “derailing this thread”Jimmi wrote. . Did you have any questions about the subject in the subject heading? And You've made some grandiose claims. When asked to substantiate these claims you refuse.

So to start at the beginning and keeping with the above statements. Jim has specifically asked for questions relating to the creation of moisture from water.

Given moisture is water, lets start at the very beginning of the lab coats thinking process.

Given the microprocessors of 50 shades of greyless matter can only count up to two, the entire scientific community promotes a false science.

The scientific branches of physics and chemistry are based upon the singular experiment that when 2 electrodes are placed in water (caustic solution) the two gases are ‘hydrogen’ and ‘oxygen’.

This constitutes how the Lab Coat kind sees their universe.

This highly publicised experiment is known to every student who enters high school. It forms the corner stone of Belief in the Cult of H2O.

Now Jim and Nick to keep it from derailing, to determine the water and moisture constituency, we need to look at this 2 electrode experiment from outside the box with an open mind.

Despite the fact one needs specific materials in the electrodes and specific additives in the water, and no mention of voltage or amperage requirements, this singular controlled experiment is hailed as the Holy Grail of the atomic structure.

Lets think outside the box Jim. (and Nick)At http://footbathtruth.com/documents/pdf/ ... 0Water.pdfIs a device with 6 electrodes with DC applied and one neutral.This “electrolysis” device offers independently verified PROOF that electrodes in water makes impurities disappear. With little to no production of gasses in any ratio that conforms with H2O.This singular experiment which I offered FOUR times now Jim, to question your theory that moisture is derived from H2O you have ignored.There are 3 companies you can buy this device from and do the clinical proofs for yourselves. (I am not affiliated with any of them)

The variation to the above PROOF that “electrolysis” with more than 2 electrodes does other stuff besides splitting water into two gases is that when water is injected with electrons first for 15 minutes then the Food Dye is added and again it fails to mix and “DISSAPPEARS” completely. ( I need to update the video on this experiment) But you can do it too.

Now the Device that turns water into silver is made with 4 electrodes. Colloidal silver makers use the standard 2 electrolysis electrodes and so the electrodes disintegrate. When 4 electrodes are used in a SPECIFIC electrical power hookup, the wires NEVER wear out and the water tests for silver. And if you bothered to read the latest post on the device there is testimony it has “elixir” properties upon the central nervous system.

While I haven’t got around to videoing the 4 Gold rodded generator, the 4 rodded Platinum generator when ingesting the elixir, induces controlled dreaming or hallucinations for about 15 minutes. Better than any pharmaceutical as its only water Jim but not as we know it. It benefits life Jim but not as we know of famous star trek quotes. When Copper is the active Positive DC electrode the water makes you drunk just like alcohol but only for about 15 minutes per glassful. No hangover.

Hug Huge way to get feelthy rich Jim. More valuable than… silver?

Do you think I make this up? Base 25 years of experiments, reports, some certified, video evidence testimony and devices that can be made by anyone even commercially available just so people like you can go…… Uh….

What we have discovered Jim is that when more than 2 electrodes are powered with DC in an electrolysis like experiment, the water purifies like in the above experiment or it ‘dirties’ like in the silver experiment. NO gases that test H or O. The gases actually test….. wait for it Jim…. Drum roll….. Water vapor or moisture. Without heat, In fact most experiments the container drops in temp. (cold fusion ring a bell?)

The types of multiple electrodes (materials and shapes) Orientation to the earths magnetic field,The number of electrodes, and their ratio to Neutral plates effects the outcomes of the waters treated. In fact in most multi electroded electrolysis experiments it’s the Neutral plates with NO DC hooked up that produce the most bubbles. NO ONE on the planet besides the people I work with have any clue to these newer electrode placements within water and their outcomes.

Brand new physics.Brand new inventionsBrand new conceptsH2O is sooooo last millennium mind programming.

Depending upon whether the device has the “center” electrode as Positive DC the device will take the dye out of the water or it turns dye into water. Again you can buy this device like 30,000 others have on the planet and do this experiment.

So what do you make of water being H2O by just applying ONLY 2 electrodes to the water giving H and O but when more electrodes and neutrals are added to the vessel of water you get salts/dyes/saline/oily and raw sewerage grey water turning into pure fresh drinking water or pure water being turned into silver or oil and drying out to coal?

But for now Jim. The bottom line that you have asked for about moisture in the heading.

You have the resources and the posts here on this forum to conduct these experiments yourself by the simple addition of more electrodes and neutral like electrodes to put silver into water and take dye out of water. Which gives new evidence about the makeup of water.

I still contend Jim your cult programming that water is H2O by the proof of "2 electrode" electrolysis is not only false but has led you to dreaming up all kinds of fantasies about moisture.

Thinking outside the box is usually a cognitive disassociation for those who must believe water is H2O in order to wear a lab coat and keep the faith.

Summation, Claims; water can exhibit new ‘elements’ forming within by the addition of DC through ‘electrolysis’.And again by electrolysis of water, ‘elements’ (dye) can be made to ‘cease to be testable’ or exist by any tests you deem appropriate.

These are my claims and the above links and references are the proof.

Will you look this time Jim? Or are you bound and gagged by H and O bonds?